What are thought experiments? Uses and examples

Schrödinger's cat is one of the best known, but there are many others that have given rise to much debate.

Mental experiments are one of the many instruments we have created to understand and explain how the phenomena around us occur. Not only that, but they have been a very important pedagogical tool in the scientific area.

Moreover, due to their characteristics, they have been the subject of debate in philosophy, cognitive sciences, natural sciences and pedagogy. But, what exactly do we mean by "mental experiments"?

• Related article, "How are psychology and philosophy similar?"

What are mental experiments?

Mental experiments are hypothetical hypothetical situations that are used to explain a situation or a phenomenon, through what would be the hypothetical situations.through what the results would be, if the experiment actually occurred.

In other words, a mental experiment is a resource of the imagination (it consists of narrating a fictitious situation), which has sufficient logic to make it possible to imagine coherent results, so that these results allow us to explain something.

Gilbert & Reiner (2000) define mental experiments as experiments that have been mentally directed. That is, although there is no need to execute them (and in many cases there is no real possibility of doing so either), they must include a hypothesis, objectives, results, objectives, results, results, results, results, results, results, results and results. should include a hypothesis, objectives, results, with the objective of offering a series of logical conclusions about a phenomenon. about a phenomenon.

Because they are a resource of the imagination, mental experiments are sometimes confused with analogical reasoning. However, the difference is that, while analogies are characterized mainly by making comparisons, mental experiments are characterized by proposing a series of actions that are carried out in a figurative way.

Main uses in research

As we have said, mental experiments have arisen mainly from a specific intention or purpose: to understand how a phenomenon works, without the need to actually experiment with it.

However, from this same intention other intentions have arisen, for example, that of justify or refute the legitimacy of a philosophical, mathematical, historical, economic or scientific model (especially in the sciences). (especially they have been used in the physical sciences).

In other words, mental experiments have three main uses: to explain, legitimize or refute explanatory models about the nature of a phenomenon. However, these two uses can be more specific according to the author who proposes them, or according to the theoretical and philosophical position that sustains them.

For example, they have been widely used not only in the physical sciences but also in philosophy of mind and morality, in cognitive and computational sciences, and in formal education.and in formal education. For this reason, they have also been considered a model for teaching, i.e., a didactic tool.

In contrast to these uses and functions, thought experiments have also faced some criticism. For example, there are those who consider that they are simply intuitionsand, as such, cannot be rigorous enough to be considered in terms of scientific knowledge or methodology.

3 examples of mental experiments

Since the 17th century we can find examples of mental experiments that have had an important impact on our way of understanding the world. Some of the most popular ones were conducted by Galileo, René Descartes, Newton or Leibniz.

More recently, the role of mental experiments the role of thought experiments in the development of physics and quantum mechanics, for example, through thefor example, through the Schrödinger's Cat experiment. Likewise, the importance of mental experiments in philosophy of language and philosophy of mind has been discussed, for example, with Searle's Chinese room or philosophical zombies.

1. Schrödinger's cat

With this experiment, Schrödinger exposes how some principles of quantum theory clash with our most basic intuitions. It consists of the following: a cat is enclosed in a steel chamberThe cat has a very small amount of radioactive substance in a counter.

There is a 50% chance that in one hour, one of the atoms will decay and poison the cat. Likewise, there is a 50% chance that none of the atoms will decay, which will keep the cat alive. So, most logically, if we open the steel box an hour later, we will either find the cat alive or dead.

However, and this is what Schrödinger exposes as a paradox, following some principles of quantum mechanics, after one hour the cat would be both alive and dead. At least before opening the box, since for the mechanics the states are superimposed until the moment when an external observer comes into play (it is this observer who modifies the states). (it is this observer who modifies the states of things).

This experiment has gone through several very different and complex explanations, but in broad strokes it has served to explain the counterintuitive nature of quantum mechanics.

2. The Chinese room

With this experiment, the philosopher John Searle questioned the possibility of creating artificial intelligence that is not only able to imitate artificial intelligence that would not only be able to mimic the human mind, but actually reproduce it..

The hypothetical situation he posed was to imagine that an English-speaking person, who does not understand Chinese, enters a room where he is provided with an instruction written in English to manipulate some Chinese symbols in a certain order. Under this order, the symbols express a message in Chinese.

If, after manipulating them, he hands them to an outside observer, the outside observer would probably think that the English-speaking person, who does not understand Chinese, does understand Chinese, even though in reality he does not. For Searle, this is how computer operating systems work (imitating understanding but not achieving it). (imitating understanding but not achieving it).

3. philosophical zombies

Philosophical zombies are a fairly widespread concept in philosophy and whose antecedents can be traced in many theories. However, it was David Chalmers who proposed the following thought experiment: if there were a world exactly like ours, but instead of being inhabited by human beings, it is inhabited by zombies, those zombies (which are physically identical to us) will still not be able to reproduce the human mind.

The reason: they have no subjective experiences (qualia). For example, although they can scream, they do not experience joy or anger, so what Chalmers proposes is that the mind cannot be explained only in physical terms (as proposed by physicalism).